Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T05:53:06.082Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Samuel Ibn Tibbon and the Esoteric Character of the Guide of the Perplexed

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2009

Aviezer Ravitzky
Aviezer Ravitzky
Affiliation:
Department of Jewish Thought, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
Get access

Extract

Samuel ben Judah Ibn Tibbon, translator of the Guide of the Perplexed and of other treatises of Maimonides, is in many ways also the first interpreter of Maimonides' philosophic teaching. The orientation of his interpretation of Maimonides' philosophy is already seen in his early writings—epistles, critical notes appended to his translations of the Guide, a philosophic glossary and the introductions to his translations. His interpretation was extensively developed, however, in his later and more comprehensive treatises—the Commentary on Ecclesiastes and Ma'amar yiqqavu hamayim. These treatises are explicitly devoted to philosophic exegesis of biblical verses, but are deeply impregnated with the proper interpretation of Maimonides' philosophy and with its problematics. Samuel Ibn Tibbon's writing had a decisive influence on Maimonidean thinkers throughout the thirteenth century, among whom may be numbered the authors of two comprehensive commentaries on the Guide, Moses ben Solomon of Salerno, and Zerahiah ben Shealtiel Hen.

Type
Research Article
Information
AJS Review , Volume 6 , April 1981 , pp. 87 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Jewish Studies 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.. Ibn Tibbon translated the Guide of the Perplexed, Maimonides' introductions to Pereq Heleq and to ′Avot, Maimonides' Commentary on ′Avot, the Epistle to Yemen and probably also the Epistle on Resurrection cf. Baneth, D. Z., “Judah Alharizi and the Chain of Translations of the Epistle on Resurrection” [Hebrew], Tarbiz 11 (1940: 260–70Google Scholar, and the literature mentioned therein). The translation of Maimonides' epistle to Joseph ben Judah attributed to Ibn Tibbon is very doubtful. (See Baneth's, introduction to his edition of the epistles of Maimonides [Jerusalem, 1946], p. 47.) Ibn Tibbon also translated Aristotle's Meteorology (based on Bitriq's Arabic version), as well as Averroes' Treatises on the Intellect. Other translations attributed to Ibn Tibbon are very doubtful.Google Scholar See Steinschneider, Moritz, Catalogus Bodleiana (Berlin, 1852), pp. 2481–94; idem, Die hebraeischen Uebersetzungen des Mittelalters (Berlin, 1893), index.Google Scholar

2.. We shall comment below on Ibn Tibbon's independent writings when appropriate.

3.. Hereafter: CE. The citations will refer to MS Parma 2182.1. Sonrie attributed to Ibn Tibbon a commentary on Proverbs, since he found in manuscript a comment by Ibn Tibbon on Proverbs as “a book we are about to elucidate.” (See Sonne, Isaiah, “Ibn Tibbon's Epistle to Maimonides” [Hebrew], Tarbiz 10 [1939]: 150.)Google Scholar However, the comment he found was taken from CE, where the discussion concerned some verses of Proverbs. S. Salfeld believed Ibn Tibbon wrote a commentary to the Song of Songs, after having found in Moses Ibn Tibbon's commentary on the Song of Songs a comment about his father's exegesis of some verses of the book. (See Salfeld, Siegmund, Das Hohelied Salomo's bei den juedischen Erklaerern des Mittelalters [Berlin, 1879], pp. 85–86.)Google Scholar Moses' comments, however, refer to some problems in the Song of Songs discussed by his father in CE. See fols. 11r, 25r, 50r, 76r, 94r, 123v–124r. See also Halkin, A. S., “Ibn Aknin's Commentary on the Song of Songs,” Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume, 2 vols. (New York, 1950), English sec, p. 397, n. 44.Google Scholar

4.. Hereafter: MYH. Page numbers refer to the edition of M. L. Bisseliches (Pressburg, 1837). While writing MYH, Ibn Tibbon began to write another book entitled Ner ha-hofes, which was to deal with the esoteric interpretation of various verses of the Torah. (See MYH, pp. 9, 14, 18, 24, 41, 59, 70, 92, 103, 114, 160, 175.) This book is not extant and we have no way of knowing whether the book went further than its first pages. The “Commentary on the Views of our Master Moses on the Account of Creation” (MS Bodl. Hunt. 46) is not in line with Samuel Ibn Tibbon's views on a number of matters. It is possible that it was written by his son, Moses. Renan's conjecture that Ibn Tibbon wrote a complete commentary on the Bible is not correctGoogle Scholar. See Renan, Ernest, Les Ecrivains juifs fran(ais du XI Ve siecle (Paris 1869), p. 340.Google Scholar

5.. This commentary exists only in manuscript. The following references will be to MS Munich 370. See Sermonetta, G. B., “The Comments of Moses ben Solomon of Salerno and of Nicholas of Giovenazzo to the Guide of the Perplexed,” lyyun 20 (1970): 212–40.Google Scholar

6.. This commentary is extant only in manuscript. The following references will be to MS Cambridge Add. 1235. On Ibn Tibbon's influence on the commentaries of Moses of Salerno and Zerahiah Hen, see Aviezer Ravitzky, “The Possibility of Existence and its Accidentality in Thirteenth Century Maimonidean Interpretation” [Hebrew], Da at 2–3 (1978–1979): 67–97; idem, “The Hypostasis of Divine Wisdom in Thirteenth Century Jewish Thought in Italy,” Italia 4 (1981); Idem, , “The Thought of Zerahiah ben Isaac ben Shealtiel Hen and Maimonidean-Tibbonian Philosophy in the Thirteenth Century” (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1978). Ibn Tibbon was cited innumerable times in the commentary of Moses of Salerno, and he is the only Jewish philosopher with the exception of Maimonides who is mentioned in the commentary of Zerahiah Hen. Dr. M. S. Nehoray recently called my attention to “Solomon ben Judah Nasi and His Commentary on the Guide” (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1979) in which he also mentions only Ibn Tibbon and his son-in-law Anatoli. (See Nehoray, “Solomon Nasi,” pp. 11, 16. The commentary was written in the fourteenth century.)Google Scholar

7.. The scholars of Lunel who were close to Ibn Tibbon were already involved in 1203 in the controversy of Meir ben Todros Halevi Abulafia. Meir Abulafia's first epistle attacking Maimonides was addressed to Jonathan ha-Kohen of Lunel and to Aaron ben Meshullam. (See Kitab al-rasail [Paris, 1871; reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1967], pp. 13–40). Aaron ben Meshullam was the person referred to in the will of Samuel Ibn Tibbon's father as one “in whose love and wisdom you [Samuel] should have confidence.” See Derekh tovim, ed. Hirsch Edelman (London, 1852), p. 6.Google Scholar

8.. This description of a social schism does not conform with the assertion that prior to the polemic of R. Solomon ben Abraham of Montpellier only a few opposed Maimonides. Cf. Sarachek, Joseph, Faith and Reason (Williamsport, Pa., 1935; reprint ed., New York, 1970), p. 71.Google Scholar

9.. CE, fols. 7v–8r.

10.. CE, fol. 33v. His fear lest his work be suppressed was based on the fact that “its words do not conform to their corrupt opinions which are far removed from the understanding of the secrets of the Torah.”

11.. CE, fol. 7v. . Cf. Guide 1: 31.

12.. “If many of my generation speak against me, it is impossible that not even one or two of them would gain some benefit from me, whether in my generation or in a future generation.” CE, fol. 7v.

13.. David Kimhi's letter to Judah Alfakhar, in Qoves teshuvot Ha-Rambam ve-′iggerolav (Leipzig, 1859; reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1967), pt. 3, pp. 3b-4a. Cf. Frank Talmage, David Kimhi (Cambridge, Mass., 1975), p. 30. This letter was written in 1232, about the time of Ibn Tibbon's death.Google Scholar

14.. “The Wars of the Lord,” in Qovef teshuvot, pt. 3, p. 16. These things were written in 1235.

15.. Compare the latter attack of Simeon ben Joseph (En Duran) on Anatoli's allegorization of the stories of the Torah (Sarachek, Faith and Reason, p. 167). Compare also the protest of Ibn Tibbon's descendants against Abba Mari ha-Yarhi at the beginning of the fourteenth century: “They said that our exertions stem from hate for the writer of the Malmad and Tibbon, Samuel Ibn,” Abba Mari Moses uen Joseph ha-Yarhi, Minhat qena′ot (Pressburg, 1838), p. 170.Google Scholar

16.. “And we heard from the trans lator who has revealed all that the Master had concealed that he used to say in public about our Torah that all its stories are allegories as well as all the commandments which are customary, and I have heard a vast number of things like that, people ridiculing the words of our rabbis.” Letter to Samuel ben Isaac, Ginzei nistarot 4 (1878): 11–12.Google Scholar

17.. Sheshet, Jacob ben, Meshiv devarim nekhohim, ed. Vajda, Georges (Jerusalem, 1969), chap. 15, 11. 53–55. The bracketed words here and in the citations below are not in the text, nor is the italization in the citations below.Google Scholar

18.. Meshiv devarim nekhohim, chap. 28, 11. 48–50.

19.. Also according to the thirteenth century interpreters influenced by Samuel Ibn Tibbon, he is closely connected with the secrets of the Guide, their concealment or their revelation. Cf. Moses of Salerno, Commentary on the Guide, fol. 269v; Zerahiah Hen, Commentary on the Guide, 1:6.

20.. Two new articles which exemplify the two lines of interpretation of the Guide have appeared recently. For the esoteric approach, see Motzkin, Aryeh Leo, “On the Interpretation of Maimonides,” Independent Journal of Philosophy 2 (1978): 39–46.Google Scholar For the opposite view, see Davidson, Herbert, “Maimonides' Secret Position on Creation,” Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature, ed. Isadore Twersky (Cambridge, Mass., 1979), pp. 16–40. We dispense with repeating the relevant bibliographical citations referring to both medieval and modern scholarship found in these articles.Google Scholar

21.. Cf., e.g., Silver, D. J., Maimonidean Criticism and the Maimonidean Controversy (Leiden, 1965), p. 34. Generally speaking, the interpretation and work of the Maimonidean scholars of the thirteenth century have not yet gained appropriate scholarly attention. Commentaries on the Guide from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries are the ones which were printed (the only thirteenth century commentary to be printed was that of Shem Tov Falaquera) and discussed in Maimonidean scholarship, whereas earlier Maimonidean thought has been treated by modern scholarship only in the context of the controversy regarding the writings of Maimonides and philosophy in general. This polemical literature by nature is not concerned with serious textual analysis or profound discussion of philosophical problems.Google Scholar

22.. , CE, fol. 103v.

23.. The relationship between this position and the writings of Al-Farabi, and even more so those of Averroes, call for a separate treatment. See below, n. 106. Here we are concerned with the way it is reflected in the interpretation of the Guide

24.. This epistle has been published. See Diesendruck, Zvi, “Samuel and Moses Ibn Tibbon on Maimonides' Theory of Providence,” Hebrew Union College Annual 11 (1936): 341–66.Google Scholar

25.. Cf. CE, fol. 57r

26.. Cf. MYH, p. 41: “And one of the separated intellects [the active intellect] will purify his intellect from its impurity, which is ignorance and error, and will make him attain perfection to the greatest possible extent: That is the end of Divine Providence for the human species.” Cf. also MYH, pp. 44, 114.

27.. Cf. the comments made by Isaac Abravanel in his commentary to the Guide 1: 44 (and also 1: 41) on the interpretations of his precursors.

28.. For example, a contradiction between a passage in the Guide 3: 17 and the Guide 2: 48 and chap. 8 of the Eight Chapters (see the edition of Diesendruck, p. 357). Maimonides distinguished in the Guide 3: 17 between a natural disaster such as “the foundering of a ship and the falling down of a roof, [which] are due to pure chance” and the human activity of going by ship, which occurs “by divine will.” Ibn Tibbon rejected this distinction in his epistle relying on the Maimonidean text itself.

29.. See Diesendruck, “Samuel and Moses Ibn Tibbon,” pp. 358–61.

30.. Maimonides advances his proposal for the solution of the problem of providence in the Guide 3: 51 as a solution which would satisfy the philosopher's doubts about the existence of providence over individuals.

31.. Cf. Davidson, “Maimonides' Secret Position,” n. 7a.

32.. (“His concealed assertions referring to other matters and to Providencecontradict each other when properly considered, but they are all done in such a way that the reader can know what should be known and established as true. These are said in truth, while others are said for the purpose of concealment, lest an explanation be improperly revealed. But the amazing discussion in 3: 51 cannot be properly attributed by me to either of these two categories: it does not seem to belong among those assertions establishing [true] opinions any way you look at it. Nor do I believe it appropriate to concealment [to be used for concealing true opinion). I say that it does not properly conceal and hide since, as I have said, it does not conform to the views of the men of religion in our time because of their ignorance of all truths”) (Diesendruck, “Moses and Samuel Ibn Tibbon,” pp. 361–62). On concealment from “the men of religion,” see also Zerahiah Hen, Commentary on Job in Israel Schwarz, Tiqvat ′enosh (Berlin, 1862; reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1969), pp. 177–78. See also MYH, p. 62: “He [the writer of the Psalms] as well as others used [the following method] in all secrets of the Torah and of faith [namely], that when they write about a certain subject, they write in most places according to the needs of the multitude whereas in one place or in a few places they allude to the truth regarding that subject.” See below concerning the continuity of esoteric writing from the Bible to the Guide. The great similarity between what is asserted in these citations and the views advanced by Leo Strauss in his interpretation of the Guide is self-evident. Cf. Strauss, Leo, “The Literary Character of the Guide of the Perplexed,” in Persecution and the An of Writing (Glencoe, III., 1952), p. 73.Google Scholar

33.. Cf. the commentary of Joseph ibn Caspi, l:9(and Abravanel's comment thereon); 2: 12; 2: 32; 3: 13; Moses Narboni, premise 18 in 2, introduction; Efodi, 1: 9; 1: 37 (and Abravanel's comment); 2: 1 (p. 15a); 2: 32 (p. 67a); Shem Tob ben Joseph 1: 9; premise 18 in 2, introduction; 2, 32 (p. 68a). I have not found Ibn Tibbon mentioning a contradiction of the fifth sort (see Maimonides, Guide, introduction: “The fifth cause from the necessity of teaching and making someone understand.”) However, since a recent paper asserts that the Guide's commentators had a hard time finding a contradiction of this type, I note the following places: Ibn Caspi 1: 3; 1:4; Efodi and Shem Tob, 1: 3; Moses of Salerno, fols. 9v, 123r, Michael ben Shabbethai Balbo, MS Vatican 105, fol. 127. Cf. also Shem Tob Falaquera, introduction (p. 10). The commentaries on the Guide are cited here according to the following editions: Falaquera, , Moreh hamoreh, in Qadmonei mefareshei ha-Moreh (Vienna, 1852;Google Scholar reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1961); Ibn Caspi, Maskiyyot kesef, Ibid; Moses Narboni, Be′ur la-Moreh, Ibid; the commentaries of Efodi, Shem Tob ben Joseph, Asher Crescas and Isaac Abravanel were printed in the popular editions of the Guide in the translation of Ibn Tibbon. The commentaries of Moses of Salerno and Zerahiah Hen are cited according to the above mentioned MSS unless otherwise noted.

34.. Diesendruck, Cf., “Samuel and Moses Ibn Tibbon,” pp. 363–65. I believe that a more comprehensive study would make it possible to juxtapose the differences between father and son on a variety of issues as the first example of the continuing controversy about the proper interpretation of the Guide. Cf., e.g., Samuel Ibn Tibbon, MYH, p. 22 against Moses Ibn Tibbon, Sefer Pe′ah, MS Bodl. Opp. 241, fol. 14r; Cf. on this also Moses of Salerno's comment on Samuel Ibn Tibbon in MS Bodl. Opp. 576, fol. 14r; so, too, Zerahiah Hen on the Guide 1:9.Google Scholar

35.. See Kitab shifa al-nafs, 4: 4; Kitab al-isharat wal-tanbihdl, ed. J. Forget (Leiden, 1892), p. 220; S. van den Bergh, Averroes' Tahafut al-Tahdfut, E. J. W. Gibb Memorial Series, n.s., vol. 19 (London, 1954), p. 175.

36.. Cf. the commentary on Numbers 20:8, 22:28; the short commentary on Exodus 3:15. Different variations of this view were held by many Jewish thinkers. Some are noted by Sirat, Colette, “Pirqei Mosheh of Moses Narboni,” Tarbiz 39 (1970): 290–95.Google Scholar See also Idel, Moshe, “On the influence of Sefer ′Or ha-sekhel on Moses Narboni and Abraham Shalom,” AJSreview 4 (1979), Hebrew sec., p. 3; Falaquera on the Guide, 3: 51.Google Scholar

37.. No wonder that an interpreter such as Moses Narboni preferred Samuel Ibn Tibbon's position to that of his son, who “did not understand the words of the Master at all, and did not know what made his father say this” (Narboni on the Guide 3: 11).

38.. MYH was written after 1221. See Steinschneider, Moritz, Die hebraeischen Uebersetzungen des MiUelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher (Berlin, 1893), p. 200.Google Scholar

39.. MYH, p. 98. See also CE, fol. 73r. “As the Master said toward the end of his discussion of providence in a chapter of the third part, providence is a corollary of wisdom that the essence of providence is the existence of the existent, and its preservation the time period in which it can be preserved and keep its existence.”

40.. Guide 3: 23.

41.. Diesendruck, “Samuel and Moses Ibn Tibbon,” p. 356. Further on Ibn Tibbon progresses from the discussion of the first level of providence–spiritual felicity and immortality–to the discussion of the other level, reflected in natural existence. He characterizes natural events as a result of “eternal Divine Will, not individually created.” In MYH, Ibn Tibbon will distinguish between “the truth of Providence,” which is the principal theme of Ecclesiastes and “the truth of immortality,” which is the principal theme of Job (p. 70).

42.. Maskiyyot kesef on Guide 3: 18. Cf. also Shem Tob on Guide 3: 18 (p. 27b); 3: 23 (p. 35a). Ibn Caspi makes Aristotle's view conform to that of the Guide. See also Falaquera against Ibn Tibbon's interpretation of this problem: “The harmonization of the Master's view and the philosophers' view, the view of Aristotle, is the harmonization of two opposites.”

43.. A strictly esoteric reading of Ibn Tibbon himself could hint at the following contradiction: on the one hand, Maimonides presented Aristotle's view on Providence as “consequent upon his opinion concerning the eternity of the world” (Guide 3: 17); on the other hand, the passage in the Guide 3: 25 to which Ibn Tibbon points as confirming the identity between the view of the Torah and the view of philosophy in regard to Providence, ends as follows: “You will find no difference [between them] other than that which we have explained: namely, that they regard the world as eternal and we regard it as produced in time. Understand this.”

44.. A substantial portion of MYH is devoted to the development of some fundamental ideas referred to in his epistle on Providence. See MYH, pp. 61–121.

45.. Another pivotal point would be a comparison between the Bible and philosophy on the problem of creation and nature.

46.. Averroes, Cf., Essays on the Intellect, translated by Ibn Tibbon, ed. Hertz, J(Berlin, 1869), p. 10;Google Scholar see also Tufail, Ibn, Hayy ben Yaqdhdn, Institut d′Etudes Orientales de la Faculte des Lettres d′Alger, vol. 3, trans, and ed. Leon, Gauthier (Beirut, 1936), p. 14. Al-Farabi contradicted himself on this point in several places. Cf. Shlomo Pines, “The Philosophic Sources of the Guide of the Perplexed,” in Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, trans. Shlomo Pines (Chicago, 1963), pp. lxxix-lxxxiii; see also S. Pines, “The Limitation of Human Knowledge according to Al-Farabi, ibn Bajja and Maimonides,” in I. Twersky, ed., Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature (Cambridge, Mass., 1979), pp. 84–85; Aryeh Leo Motzkin, “Philosophy and the Law,” Interpretation 10 (1980). Cf. Alexander Altmann, “Ibn Bajja on Man's Ultimate Felicity,” in Harry Austryn Wolfson Jubilee Volume, 3 vols. (Jerusalem, 1965), English sec, 1: 48–49. Samuel Ibn Tibbon attributed to Al-Farabi the view which denies the possibility of uniting with the active intellect, as this doctrine was presented and criticized by Averroes in his essays on the intellect, which Samuel Ibn Tibbon translated into Hebrew. Moses Ibn Tibbon attributed to Al-Farabi the opposite view, which asserts the possibility of uniting with the active intellect, a doctrine in Al-Farabi's book, The Principles of Beings (also called The Political Regimes), which Moses Ibn Tibbon apparently translated into Hebrew. See Moses Ibn Tibbon, Commentary on the Song of Songs (Lyck, 1874), p. 9. Cf. Al-Farabi, Sefer Hathtalol ha-nimsa′ot, ed. Zwi Filipowsky in Sefer ha-′Asif (Leipzig, 1849), pp. 2, 5. (The editor attributed this translation of Al-Farabi to Samuel Ibn Tibbon, but see the references to Steinschneider in n. 1 above.)Google Scholar

47.. See Averroes, Essays on the Intellect, p. 10. Cf. Falaquera, Commentary on the Guide, p. 43.

48.. CE, fol. 25r.

49.. Cf. CE, fol. 36r: “The possibility of the unity of the spirit of any man to the separated intellect. Most Aristotelian philosophers believed in this possibility, but some of them denied it.”

50.. Steinschneider, Catalogus Bodleiana, p. 837.

51.. See Averroes, , Commentarium Magnum in Aristotelis De Anima Libros, Corpus Commentatorium Averrois in Aristotelem, vol. 6, pt. 1, ed.Crawford, Stuart F. (Cambridge, Mass., 1953) pp. 481–87Google Scholar. Ibn Tibbon compared the two writings of Averroes: “Thus wrote Averroes in this essay of his, but in his commentary on the De Anima he confused the issue and made it impenetrable” (C.E., fol. 25r). Gershon ben Solomon in his Sha′ar ha-shamayim (Warsaw, 1976; reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1968) p. 24, makes a similar observation. (See Berman, L. V., “Ibn Bajja and Maimonides,” Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1954, p. 224). Gershon ben Solomon copied his observation from Ibn Tibbon verbatim.Google Scholar

52.. CE, fols. 23v-25r. Ibn Tibbon could have taken this piece of information from Averroes.

53.. Ecclesiastes 3:21.

54.. CE, fols. 23v-25r

55.. See CE, fols. 3r, 31 v–32v; cf. also Ibn Tibbon's introduction to his translation of Maimonides' commentary on ′Avot (printed in the Vilna ed. of the Mishnah. See below n. 134).

56.. Cf. Judah Halevi, Kuzari, 5: 14. Crescas, ′Or ha-shem 2: 5,5; 2: 6,1. On the relation between the equivocality of ′adam in the Guide and Crescas's critique of it, see Harvey, Warren Z., “Hasdai Crescas' Critique of the Theory of the Acquired Intellect” (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1973), pp. 205–12.Google Scholar

57.. See, for example, CE, fols. 23v–24v, 126r Cf. Joseph Albo, Sefer ha-Iqqarim, 3: 3; Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 1, 1, q. 88, art. 1, resp.

58.. See especially CE, fols. 123v-128r See also CE, fols. 1r-2v. 86. Anatoli, Cf. Jacob, Malmad ha-talmidim (Lyck, 1866), p. 22b.Google Scholar

59.. Cf. Guide, introduction; 1: 17; 2: 30; 3: 8 and Efodi's commentary on 1: 6.

60.. Cf. the comments of Moses of Salerno, fol. 274v, and Samuel Ibn Zarza, Meqor Hayyim (Mantua, 1559), p. 7b; both of them cite Ibn Tibbon.Google Scholar

61.. See CE, fol. 86. Cf. Zerahiah yen on Guide 1: 6–7; Ibn Caspi, 1: 1; and Narboni, Efodi and Shem Tob on 1:7 and Abravanel's critique, Ibid

62.. Cf. the commentaries of Moses of Salerno (fol. 271r) and Narboni on 2: 30 (p. 41b), who cite Ibn Tibbon. See also Falaquera on 1: 2, end; Shem Tob and Abravanel on 1: 30, end.

63.. See also Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Teshuvah, 8:3. Cf. Falaquera on 1: 42 and Ibn Caspi 1: 30.

64.. Maskiyyot kesef 1: 2. Ibn Caspi not only interprets the story of Adam as the paradigmatic account of man, but explicitly hints that he denies the historical significance of the story. See 1: 14 and 2: 29: “The name ′Adam ha-rishon (the first man) is attributed according to the Guide's concealed view to Moses, for he was the first man who ever existed” (i.e., whose intellect became active). See also the editor's view there (1: 14) on Narboni's and Ibn Caspi's secret, and Abravanel's reaction to their “deceitful act” (ma′aseh ta′lu′im). So also for Samuel Ibn Zarza (see n. 60), but this is not necessarily so in the case of Efodi on the Guide 1: 2 (pp. 2, 17), where he cites Ibn Caspi and adds: “Everything which happened to the first man happens to everyone in our own age many times over.” See also Shem Tob, Ibid, p. 16: “And it seems to us in every generation that everything that happened to the first man is the account of the history of man.” See also Efodi and Shem Tob on 1: 8 and Abravanel on I: 7.

65.. Mikhlol yofi, MS Munich 64, fol. 229r. Further on, he says that the priority of “the first man” is the priority of the intellect over matter; he says this in connection with a theory of neoplatonic emanation. Cf. the words of Shalom Anavi (15th century), MS Vatican 105, fols. 271r-286r (esp. fol. 271r-v).

66.. Cf. CE, fols. lv-2r, 24, 75r, 92v, 123v, 124, 127r(but see 134r). Cf. Maimonides' introduction to Perek Ijeleq in Haqdamol le-Ferush ha-Mishnah, ed. M. V. Rabinovitz (Jerusalem, 1961), p. 129.

67.. See the commentary on the Guide 1: 6. See also 1: 42. Cf. Ibn Caspi and Narboni on 1: 42 and Abravanel's reaction as well as the editor's comment, Ibid; also Shem Tob on 1: 13; 1: 42 and Ibn Caspi, Efodi and Shem Tob on 1: 70. Sheshet, Cf.Sevi Nasi of Saragossa, cited by Alexander Marx, “Texts By and About Maimonides,” Jewish Quarterly Review 25 (1934–35): 421; cf. also Samuel Ibn zarza, Mikhlol yofi, p. 343a: “Know, that it is Elijah who is the means to the resurrection of the dead, i.e., since he attained divinity, which is the living essence of the intellect, and that is the resurrection of the dead, in that the potential intellect becomes the intellect in actu, for as long as the intellect is only in potency it is dead.”Google Scholar

68.. Ezekiel 1:26.

69.. See MYH, pp. 50–51.

70.. Cf. CE, fol. 6r; MYH, p. 62 and n. 106 below.

71.. Guide 1: 6, 7, 42, 14 respectively.

72.. Perush ha-millim ha-zarot be-Moreh nevukhim, ed. Judah Ibn Shmuel Kaufman (Jerusalem, 1946), p. 15. An inferior edition is printed in the popular editions of the Guide as translated by Samuel Ibn Tibbon.Google Scholar

73.. Cf. CE, fols. 125r–127v and the reference there to Guide 3: 8–11.

74.. The reference here is apparently to Guide 2: 30. Cf. CE, fols. 86v, 126v, 2r. See also Shem Tob on 2: 30 (p. 61b), 2: 46, 2: 29 (p. 55a).

75.. This chapter in the Guide is devoted to the interpretation of fur in the Bible. Two possibilities for an esoteric interpretation of this chapter were proposed later to Ibn Tibbon: Zerahiah Hen identified ur with the first man “who is the beginning of mankind, from whom the human species was quarried; he was created in the image of God.” (It may be that Hen and Ibn Tibbon find here an additional allusion for the allegorization of the first man as the quintessential intellectual element in man.) The second possibility is proposed by IbnCaspi on 1: 17 (and cf. Introduction, p. 7).

76.. CE, fol. 129v. Cf. also fol. 128r.

77.. Judah Ibn Shmuel Kaufman, the editor of the Perush ha-millim ha-zarot and the author of a commentary to the Guide, 3 vols. (Jerusalem, 1935–1959), wondered at this point: “Is this all that Maimonides innovated?” He was thus constrained to conclude that Ibn Tibbon is here referring to Alharizi rather than to Maimonides. However, Kaufman's approach to the Guide is very different from Ibn Tibbon's and Ibn Tibbon's explicit words fit well with his method of reading the Guide. They should consequently be understood as they stand.

78.. Cf. Zerahiah Hen on 1: 14: “Many are perplexed saying, why did the author [Maimonides] point out the equivocity of the name ′adam [man], for it does not signify the creator, but his intention was to allude to a very important matter, which is implicit in what he says. It must not be explained. He who understands will understand it.”

79.. Alharizi interpreted the intention of these chapters by the general context of their location in the Guide–the negation of anthropomorphism. These four chapters refer in his opinion to God and not to man. See Sha′ar kavvanat ha-peraqim, printed in a number of popular editions of the Guide in the translation of Ibn Tibbon.

80.. Cf. Narboni on 1: 59.

81.. See Ibn Caspi, introduction (“Instruction with Respect to this Treatise”); Shem Tob on 1: 36 (p. 58a).Google Scholar

82.. Cf. Zerahiah yen on 1:6: “He alludes to you in many chapters regarding matters which you need in order to understand other chapters which are very far removed from them.”

83.. A typical example of this method is implicit in his critique there of Alharizi, who made the chapter on ′adam refer to the “man” in Ezekiel's Chariot. Ibn Tibbon thinks that Maimonides scattered the various significations of this term in various places in the Guide, and one should not confuse the significations of the various chapters. The specific subject matter of the Guide 1: 14 1 is the equivocity of this noun when signifying a human being and his potential for transcending the level of the multitude and being substantiated as an intellect, like “the first man.” The specific subject matter of another chapter, 3: 5, is the “man” in the Account of the Chariot (see M YH, p. 50). By joining these and other chapters together one can reconstruct the general intention of “man,” as signifying any intellectual substance, human or superhuman. Cf. also Ibn Tibbon's critique of Maimonides' positing of the supreme signification of “man” in Ezekiel's Chariot in MYH. p. 52.

84.. Cf. Harvey's dissertation, cited in n. 56, Appendix A. Compare this with Ibn Tibbon, CE, fol. 1 lv: “Whoever understands the Guide of the Perplexed would not deny that ‘man’ is identical to ‘man's spirit.’” See also fol. 60r.

85.. In a colloquium of the Center for Judaic Studies at Harvard (held February, 1980), Sarah Klein-Braslavi presented an outline of a study to be published, entitled “Maimonides' Interpretation of the Story of the Garden of Eden.”

86.. See Strauss, Leo, Persecution, pp. 47–78Google Scholar. See also Strauss, L. “How to Begin to Study The Guide of the Perplexed,” in Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, trans. S. Pines (Chicago, 1963), pp. xxi-lvi.Google Scholar

87.. Guide, Introduction to Part 3.

88.. Guide, Introduction. See also 1:71; Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Yesodei ha-Torah, 2: 12; 4: 11. On the general value of learning by rote according to Maimonides, see Twersky, Isadore, “Sefer Mishneh Torah la-Rambam, megamato ve-tafqido,” in Proceedings of he Israel cademy of Sciences and Humanities 5 (1972): 14–15.Google Scholar

89.. See also his commentaries on Genesis and Exodus in Sassoon's, S. D. edition (London, 1958), p. 21. Cf. David Kimlji, n. 13 above.Google Scholar

90.. A comment on his father's commentary on the Guide in MS Munich 370, fol. 9r.

91.. An epistle to Judah ben Solomon, MS Cambridge 1235 Add., fol. 92r. See also Shem job on Guide 1: 36 (p. 58a).

92.. CE. fol. 3v.

93.. See Guide, Introduction (Pines, p. 18): “The author accordingly uses some device to conceal it by all means.”

94.. , CE. fol. 3v.

95.. CE, fols. 135r–136v. Cf. fols. 32r, 76v, 103v.

96.. MYH, p. 62. See also p. 166: “He did so in order to conceal and thus confused the order,” p. 157. Cf. Anatoli, Malmadhatalmidim, pp. 32b, 51a; introduction, p. 3.

97.. See CE, fol. 68r “Moses gave the Law when the Sabaeans prevailed over the whole world, and they denied the existence of anything not perceived by the senses. They thus had declared the higher bodies to be divinities of the lower bodies. They did not believe in the existence of existents having no body nor power in a body, i.e., they denied the existence of intelligences separated from matter or any other subject.” MYH, p. 173. Cf. Guide 1: 63; 3: 29; 3: 45; Torah, Mishneh, Hilkhot ′Ovedei kokhavim, 1: 1–2;Google ScholarEpistle on Resurrection, ed. Finkel, Joshua, Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 9 (1939): 31–32.Google Scholar

98.. CE, fol. 68. See also MYH, pp. 123, 152, 157.

99.. See MYH, p. 132. Vajda, Cf. Georges, “An Analysis of the Ma′amar yiqqavu ha-mayim by Samuel b. Judah ibn Tibbon,” Journal of Jewish Studies 10 (1959): 137–49 (esp. p. 141, n. 1)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Vajda, G., Recherches sur la philosophie et la Kabbale dans la penseejuive du Moyen Age (Paris and the Hague, 1962), pp. 1–32.Google Scholar

100.. CE, fol. 113v. Tibbon, Cf. Moses Ibn, Commentary on the Song of Songs (Lyck, 1874), p. 8.Google Scholar

101.. In this context he is not speaking about the development in the philosophic problems themselves, but rather about a gradual revelation of the secret allotted to the select few in every age. In his treatment of another issue, the investigation of nature, Ibn Tibbon speaks also of progress which comes about as a result of the theoretical and empirical development of the sciences by succeeding generations. After disagreeing with the static view which does not believe in the possibility of such a development “since I can do nothing not done already by the ancients,” Ibn Tibbon notes: “By nature, later seekers after wisdom augment the knowledge and deeds of earlier ones. For when a later student having a fine intelligence and a pure under standing understands what the earlier ones knew-either by hearing them directly or by hearing those who studied their writings-he will make branches grow from the roots which they put forth and will reach further conclusions from what they had to say, not to speak of what can be added by experimentation and theorizing. This is just as we find in astronomy, in medicine and in the other arts, that the latter adds from his own theorizing and understanding,” CE, fol. 55r “For the student senses what the master did not, and the latter senses what the earlier one did not; this is the way that knowledge increases,” CE, fol. 68v. See below also about the relationship to Maimonides.

102.. See the Guide 1: 26. Cf. also 1: 33; 1: 46; 1: 59; 3: 13 (p. 19a); Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Yesodei ha-Torah 1: 9–12; Epistle on Resurrection, p. 17. See also Falaquera on 1: 35.

103.. For an interpretation of Maimonides' view of the commandments in relation to a gradual, historic process of the monotheization of humanity, see Funkenstein, Amos, “Maimonides: Political Theory and Realistic Messianism,” Miscellanea Mediaevalia (Berlin and New York, 1977), pp. 91–96.Google Scholar

104.. Ibn Tibbon does not cease emphasizing the continuity of oral teaching, beginning with “Shem and Eber, and others, who had not written books but would lecture and teach face to face, orally” until Moses (citation in the text of the paper below) and the prophets, whose books are but a partial revelation of their oral teaching (“there is no doubt that Isaiah taught more to his disciples orally”), to David who “taught more to the people of his time orally” than he did by writing, and to Solomon “who also taught his generation orally, and then apparently compiled in writing some of what he said orally.” CE, fol. 4.

105.. MYH, p. 174.

106.. Cf. MYH, pp. 62, 132, 21: CE. fols. 45r, 135r; Anatoli, Malmadha-talmidim, introduction, p. 3. On Joseph Ibn Caspi's approach which denies to many biblical verses the rank of philosophic truth and finds in them an expression of the views, beliefs and customs of the multitude, see Twersky, Isadore, “Joseph ibn Kaspi, Portrait of a Medieval Jewish Intellectual,” in Studies in MedievalJewish History and Literature, ed. Twersky, I (Cambridge, Mass., 1979), pp. 238–42.Google Scholar Ibn Tibbon and Ibn Caspi share the view that not every biblical assertion is absolutely true, and not every verse deserves philosophic allegorization. (Ibn Tibbon explicitly presented his views on this issue as more extreme than those of Maimonides, and noted that in his lost book, Ner ha-hofes, he elaborated his position. See MYH p. 132). Both Ibn Tibbon and Ibn Caspi maintain that their position holds also for issues not directly connected to the issue of anthropomorphism. But Ibn Tibbon's position is connected to the pedagogic-political context of the Bible; he does not share Ibn Caspi's general hermeneutic principle regarding the adoption of the opinions and customs of the multitude even beyond this context (see Twersky, Ibid). This particular theme in Ibn Tibbon's teaching goes beyond our present concern with his interpretation of Maimonides. I hope to be able to treat it elsewhere.

107.. See G. Vajda's studies cited in n. 99.

108.. See the Guide 1: 71, 2: 11, 3: 10.

109.. MYH, pp. 173–175.

110.. Pines, Cf. Shlomo, “Scholasticism after Thomas Aquinas and the Teachings of Hasdai Crescas and his Predecessors,” Proceedings of the Israel A cademy of Sciences and Humanities 1 (1966): 38, n. 102.Google Scholar

111.. Narboni on the Guide 2: 19 (p. 34a).

112.. Caspi, Cf. Joseph Ibn, Menorat kesef, in ′Asarah kelei kesef, ed. Last, Isaac (Pressburg, 1903), p. 77Google Scholar, who justifies revealing secrets with the following argument: “I simply copy what the philosophers like Aristotle and his colleagues, who wrote about these things in their books, say. What I wish to do is to clarify the three worlds, what we call the Account of the Chariot. Their books are well known to everyone, though, truly, they are unknown by our people, due to our transgressions.” Abravanel would later use Ibn Tibbon's argument in a way counter to Ibn Tibbon's original intention, in order to argue against the identification of the secrets of the Torah with philosophic truths: “It would be very strange if intellectual investigation were identical to prophetic emanation for philosophic lectures are delivered to a public of thousands in the academies of the wise of the gentiles young and old, and they do not try to conceal it at all. Ibn Tibbon has already sensed the doubtful nature of this argument.” See “Te′anot lequhot mi-teva′ ha-ketuvim yema′anu mah she-peresh ha-RaMBaM be-merkevet Yehezqe′el,” printed in the popular editions of the Guide, pt. 3, pp. 71–72. This issue was already a source of contention between Zerahiah Hen and Hillel of Verona at the end of the thirteenth century. Note the former: “For you search for secrets where they are not It is the things found in their treatises on natural science which he calls secret, not because they are written in the books of the natural philosophers, but because they are hinted at by the prophets” (′Osar nehmadl [1857]: 132). See also Anatoli, , Malmadha-talmidim, p. 32bGoogle Scholar. Daud, Cf. Abraham Ibn, ′Emunah ramah (Frankfurt, 1853), p. 4, and Maimonides, Introduction to Pereq Heleq, pp. 118–19.Google Scholar

113.. The argument that it is obligatory to disseminate the sciences among the Jews, and to reveal the intellectual truths hidden in the Jewish sources on account of the contemporary philosophic inferiority of the Jews vis-a-vis their neighbors is constantly repeated in the writings of scholars influenced by Ibn Tibbon in the thirteenth century. See Anatoli, Malmad ha-talmidim, introduction, pp. 9, 171a; Moses Ibn Tibbon, Sefer Pe′ah, fol. 11r; Moses of Salerno, Commentary, fol. 212v; Zerahiah Hen, Commentary on Job, p. 169; Zerahiah Hen, introduction to the translation of Averroes' Middle Commentary on the Metaphysics (which was published together with his translation of the Liber de Causis): Pseudo-Aristotelis, Liber de Causis, ed. Ignac Schreiber (Budapest, 1916). See also Judah ben Solomon ha-Kohen of Toledo, Midrash Hokhmah, MS Cambridge Add. 1527, fol. 30r.

114.. This refers to biblical terms. It should be noted that in his translation of the Guide, the translator did not take care to translate an Arabic term by the same Hebrew term in every case. This is also true for terms which have a paramount importance in the Guide, as, for example, the Will of God. The Arab terms mashiyya and irada were not translated in every case as ra$on or hefef respectively. See Nuriel, Abraham, “Ha-Rason ha-′elohi be-Moreh nevukhim,” Tarbiz 39 (1970): 39.Google Scholar

115.. CE, fol. 67v.

116.. 1. Saadia Gaon interpreted “And God said let there be light-God willed that there shou.ld be light.” See Gaon, Saadia, Commentary on the Torah, ed. Kafih, Joseph(Jerusalem, 1963), p. 11. His interpretation identifies the creating speech with the causing will which is not directed at any particular object, and indeed that is the interpretation which is most appropriate to a belief in a direct and simultaneous creation ex nihilo of all existence. Ibn Tibbon, following Abraham Ibn Ezra, had reservations about this interpretation and explained that God's “speeches” (ma′amarim) are directed toward intermediary beings (intellects and spheres; see below) between God and his creatures, in the Account of Creation. It was convenient for him to point to his predecessors' controversy (MYH, p. 125), but a reader who is well-versed in the text of the Guide will recognize the drift of what is being said, and will note that the approach which is being criticized is the very one adopted by Maimonides himself in what seemed to Ibn Tibbon to be “the plain sense of his words.” Maimonides had in fact noted that “this has already been said by an individual other than us and is very well-known.” Guide 1: 65. Cf. CE, fol. 67. 2. Maimonides distinguished between belief in an arbitrary voluntary action of God-“by will alone” (a belief similar to that held by the Ash′arite Kalam) and the belief of “our scholars and of our men of knowledge” in a voluntary action of God which is subsequent to wisdom, to a telic intention (Guide 3: 25–26). Ibn Tibbon cautiously bestowed on these terms a new meaning. Every belief in a direct simultaneous ex nihilo creation of all reality is called by him a belief in creation “by will alone,” as against creation “by wisdom”–which would mean henceforth a caused mediation of existing beings (MYH, p. 126). Thus, by taking advantage of Maimonidean linguistic usages, “the plain sense of his [Maimonides'] words in 2: 30” (MYH. p. 128) are included in the criticized view.Google Scholar

117.. MYH, p. 128.

118.. , MYH. p. 119. See Ravitzky, A., “The Hypostasis of the Divine Wisdom.”Google Scholar

119.. Guide 2: 18.

120.. CE, fol. 4v. Cf. the Epistle of Aaron b. Meshullam to Meir Halevi Abulafia, in Qovef teshuvol ha-RaMBaM ve-′iggerotav, pt. 3, p. 11.

121.. CE, fol. 65v. See also fols. 4v, 31r, 62v, 67v, 68v, 77v, 82r, 90r, 137v; MYH, pp. 19, 22,29, 30, 39,47, 51, 108–10, 114, 130, 132, 148. Cf. also his brief comments on the Guide, MS Jewish National and University Library 8*746 (see Dalalal al-frairin, ed. Salomon Munk [Paris, 1856–1866], p. 102, n. 2). It should be noted that Ibn Tibbon did not accept all of Maimonides' proposed Hebrew equivalents in his translation (see I. Sonne, “Maimonides' Epistle,” p. 89, n. 13).

122.. , MYH, p. 114. Cf. n. 101 above.

123.. , CE, fol. 77v.

124.. MYH. p. 53.

125.. Qoves teshuvot ha-RaMBaM, pt. 2, p. 44a. See also p. 27b, and the epistle of Jonathan ha-Kohen of Lunel, Ibid.

126.. There is a disagreement about the reconstruction of the various phases of the correspondence. See Marx, Alexander, “The Correspondence between the Rabbis of Southern France and Maimonides about Astrology,” Hebrew Union College Annual 3 (1926): 333–36;Google Scholaridem, , “Maimonides and the Scholars of Southern France,” in Studies in Jewish History and Booklore (New York, 1944), pp. 58–62. Cf. also I. Sonne, “Maimonides' Epistle.”Google Scholar

127.. See CE, fol. 5v.

128.. For example, Maimonides answered Ibn Tibbon's request to visit him (see below), yet we do not possess the original letter of request. Ibn Tibbon reports too on his last letter to Maimonides (CE, fol. 5v), but we do not possess this either. There might have been other exchanges of letters.

129.. See Marx, A., “The Correspondence,” p. 335, n. 54; Diesendruck, “Samuel and Moses ibn Tibbon,” pp. 348–50.Google Scholar

130.. Cf. Steinschneider, M., Catalogus Bodleiana, p. 2490; I. Sonne, “Maimonides' Epistle,” pp. 146–47.Google Scholar

131.. Diesendruck had already wondered (“Samuel and Moses ibn Tibbon,” p. 345, n. 21) about the probability of the suggestion that a letter was on its way approximately seven months.

132.. , Qoves teshuvot ha-RaMBaM ve-′iggerotav, pt. 2, p. 28b (that letter is from Tishri 1511, Seleucid Era). Prof. Jacob Levinger has suggested (in an oral communication) that Maimonides tried to hint to Ibn Tibbon that he should not expect additional revelations about Maimonides' views of problems such as providence, even in a private conversation.

133.. See above.

134.. In addition to what has been said above, I would like to note the following: In Ibn Tibbon's introduction to Maimonides' commentary on ′Avot, the translator hints at his dissatisfaction with the concluding chapter of the Guide, which might be thought to imply that the moral virtues (hesed, mishpat and sedaqah) are preferable to the theoretical virtues, i.e., to intellectual union (haskel ve-yado′a ′oti) in contradistinction to other chapters in the Guide. Ibn Tibbon prefers an alternative interpretation of Jeremiah 9:22–23; henceforth the primacy of intellection would no longer be in doubt: “Although the Master interpreted this verse well in 3: 54 I have a different interpretation of some of its words, an innovation. I have no doubt that it is a good and true one. It seems to me that there is another interpretation, which is that the main thrust of the hint in the phrase, ′For in these things I delight, saith the Lord,′ refers to ′that he understands and knows Me′ (haskel ve-yado′a ′oti), for here he gives a reason why one should glory in these two [understanding and knowing], and not in the other three noted [hesed, mishpat u-sedaqah–lovingkindness, justice and righteousness]; the reason is that these two, i.e., haskel ve-yado′a ′oti, are His ultimate desire and intention in man” (MS Vienna Heb. 156, fol. 8r). This was published in the Vienna edition of the Mishnah. Cf. also CE, fols. 91, 138v; MYH, p. 170. Steinschneider established the date of the translation of Maimonides' commentary of ′Avot as 1202 (Die hebraeischen Uebersetzungen, p. 438. The addition olZaL [of blessed memory] is attributed to a later copier.) Thus we must consider the possibility that Maimonides saw this passage and could be informed about Ibn Tibbon's tendencies from yet another angle. Modern scholarship on the Guide (beginning with Herman Cohen) was concerned with the problem treated here by the Guide (from the point of view of the interpretation of the Guide). See, e.g., Goldman, Eliezer, “Ha-′Avodah ha-meyuhedet be-massigei ha-′amittot,” Bar Han Annual 6 (1968): 287–313Google Scholar. See also Berman, L. V., “The Political Interpretation of the Maxim: The Purpose of Philosophy is the Imitation of God,” Studia Islamica 15 (1961): 53–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Altmann, Alexander, “Maimonides' Four Perfections,” Israel Oriental Studies 2 (1972): 23–24.Google ScholarPubMed